Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 22:47, 7 August 2013

• WP:AN
• WP:ANB

• For urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems, use Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.
• To request review of an administrator's action or other use of advanced permissions, use Misplaced Pages:Administrative action review
• If you are new, try the Teahouse instead.
• Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead, follow the instructions on Misplaced Pages:Requests for oversight.
• For administrative backlogs add {{Admin backlog}} to the backlogged page; post here only if urgent.
• Do not post requests for page protection, deletion requests, or block requests here.
• Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly.
• If you want to challenge the closure of a request for comment, use {{RfC closure review}}

When you start a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page. Pinging is not enough.

You may use {{subst:AN-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.

Sections inactive for over seven days are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.(archives, search)

Template:Active editnotice

This page has an administrative backlog that requires the attention of willing administrators. Please replace this notice with {{no admin backlog}} when the backlog is cleared.

You may want to increment {{Archive basics}} to |counter= 38 as Misplaced Pages:Closure requests/Archive 37 is larger than the recommended 150Kb.

Archives

Index no archives yet (create)

This page has archives. Sections older than 2 days may be automatically archived by ClueBot III when more than 4 sections are present.

• WP:CR
• WP:RFCL
• WP:ANRFC

Use the closure requests noticeboard to ask an uninvolved editor to assess, summarize, and formally close a Misplaced Pages discussion. Do so when consensus appears unclear, it is a contentious issue, or where there are wiki-wide implications (e.g. any change to our policies or guidelines).

Do not list discussions where consensus is clear. If you feel the need to close them, do it yourself.

Move on – do not wait for someone to state the obvious. In some cases, it is appropriate to close a discussion with a clear outcome early to save our time.

Do not post here to rush the closure. Also, only do so when the discussion has stabilised.

On the other hand, if the discussion has much activity and the outcome isn't very obvious, you should let it play out by itself. We want issues to be discussed well. Do not continue the discussion here.

There is no fixed length for a formal request for comment (RfC). Typically 7 days is a minimum, and after 30 days the discussion is ripe for closure. The best way to tell is when there is little or no activity in the discussion, or further activity is unlikely to change its result.

When the discussion is ready to be closed and the outcome is not obvious, you can submit a brief and neutrally worded request for closure.

Include a link to the discussion itself and the {{Initiated}} template at the beginning of the request. A helper script can make listing easier. Move discussions go in the 'other types' section.

Any uninvolved editor may close most discussions, so long as they are prepared to discuss and justify their closing rationale.

Closing discussions carries responsibility, doubly so if the area is contentious. You should be familiar with all policies and guidelines that could apply to the given discussion (consult your draft closure at the discussions for discussion page if unsure). Be prepared to fully answer questions about the closure or the underlying policies, and to provide advice about where to discuss any remaining concerns that editors may have.

Non-admins can close most discussions. Admins may not overturn your non-admin closures just because you are not an admin, and this is not normally in itself a problem at reviews. Still, there are caveats. You may not close discussions as an unregistered user, or where implementing the closure would need tools or edit permissions you do not have access to. Articles for deletion and move discussion processes have more rules for non-admins to follow.

If you want to formally challenge and appeal the closure, do not start the discussion here. Instead follow advice at WP:CLOSECHALLENGE.

Other areas tracking old discussions

• Misplaced Pages:Requested moves#Elapsed listings
• Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Old
• Misplaced Pages:Redirects for discussion
• Misplaced Pages:Categories for discussion/Awaiting closure
• Misplaced Pages:Templates for discussion#Old discussions
• Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion#Old business
• Misplaced Pages:Proposed mergers/Log
• Misplaced Pages:Proposed article splits

Administrative discussions

Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive367#Close challenge for Talk:1948 Arab–Israeli War#RFC for Jewish exodus

(Initiated 29 days ago on 13 December 2024) challenge of close at AN was archived nableezy - 05:22, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard#Sander.v.Ginkel unblock request

(Initiated 26 days ago on 15 December 2024) voorts (talk/contributions) 00:55, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

Place new administrative discussions above this line using a level 3 heading

Requests for comment

Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/In the news criteria amendments

(Initiated 95 days ago on 7 October 2024) Tough one, died down, will expire tomorrow. Aaron Liu (talk) 23:58, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 459#RFC_Jerusalem_Post

(Initiated 75 days ago on 28 October 2024) Participation/discussion has mostly stopped & is unlikely to pick back up again. - Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 21:15, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

 Note: This is a contentious topic and subject to general sanctions. - Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 21:15, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

Archived. P.I. Ellsworth , ed.  22:26, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Genocide#RfC: History section, adding native American and Australian genocides as examples

(Initiated 65 days ago on 6 November 2024) RfC expired on 6 December 2024 . No new comments in over a week. Bogazicili (talk) 15:26, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Team Seas#Re: the ocean pollution additions

(Initiated 57 days ago on 15 November 2024) Clear consensus that the proposed edit (and its amended version) violate WP:SYNTH. However, the owning editor is engaging in sealioning behavior, repeatedly arguing against the consensus and dismissing others' rationale as not fitting his personal definition of synthesis; and is persistently assuming bad-faith, including opening an ANI accusing another editor of WP:STONEWALLING. When finally challenged to give a direct quote from the source that supports the proposed edit, it was dismissed with "I provided the source, read it yourself" and then further accused that editor with bad-faith. The discussion is being driven into a ground by an editor who does not (nor wish to) understand consensus and can't be satisfied with any opposing argument supported by Misplaced Pages policy or guidelines. --ThomasO1989 (talk) 22:30, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Israel#RfC

(Initiated 49 days ago on 22 November 2024) Legobot has removed the RFC notice. Can we please get an interdependent close. TarnishedPath 23:08, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

 Note: Ongoing discussion, please wait a week or two. Bogazicili (talk) 14:08, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#RFC_Science-Based_Medicine

(Initiated 34 days ago on 7 December 2024) slowed for a while Bluethricecreamman (talk) 06:14, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

 Done Seraphimblade 10:07, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

Talk:Wicked (2024 film)#RfC on whether credited name or common name should be used

(Initiated 31 days ago on 11 December 2024) Participation mostly slowed, should have an independent close. Happily888 (talk) 10:14, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

Place new discussions concerning RfCs above this line using a level 3 heading

Deletion discussions

Misplaced Pages:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 December 20#Category:Belarusian saints

(Initiated 22 days ago on 20 December 2024) HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 23:10, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 December 31#Category:Disambig-Class Star Trek pages

(Initiated 10 days ago on 31 December 2024) HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 20:54, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Categories for discussion/Log/2025 January 1#Category:Category-Class 20th Century Studios pages of NA-importance

(Initiated 10 days ago on 1 January 2025) HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 20:50, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

Place new discussions concerning XfDs above this line using a level 3 heading

Other types of closing requests

Talk:Arab migrations to the Levant#Merger Proposal

(Initiated 108 days ago on 25 September 2024) Open for a while, requesting uninvolved closure. Andre🚐 22:15, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Winter fuel payment abolition backlash#Merge proposal

(Initiated 74 days ago on 29 October 2024) There are voices on both sides (ie it is not uncontroversial) so a non-involved editor is needed to evaluate consensus and close this. Thanks. PamD 09:55, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Israel–Hamas war#Survey

(Initiated 65 days ago on 7 November 2024) Looking for uninvolved close in CTOP please, only a few !votes in past month. I realise this doesn't require closing, but it is preferred in such case due to controversial nature of topic. CNC (talk) 10:44, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

•  Note: I'm happy to perform the merge if required, as have summarised other sections of this article already with consensus. I realise it's usually expected to perform splits or merges when closing discussions, but in this case it wouldn't be needed. CNC (talk) 20:28, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Talk:Shiv Sena#Merge proposal

(Initiated 45 days ago on 27 November 2024) Discussion seems to have stopped. As the proposal is not uncontroversial, and I, as the initiator, am involved, I am requesting an uninvolved editor to close the discussion. Arnav Bhate (talk • contribs) 11:02, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

Talk:You Like It Darker#Proposed merge of Finn (short story) into You Like It Darker

(Initiated 14 days ago on 27 December 2024) Proposed merge discussion originally opened on 30 May 2024, closed on 27 October 2024, and reopened on 27 December 2024 following the closure being overturned at AN. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:22, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

Place new discussions concerning other types of closing requests above this line using a level 3 heading

Topic ban

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I am here to revisit the ban imposed by User:Bishonen as stated by her here. My first rationale that this needs to be revisited is because the closer of that discussion was also a participant in that discussion, constituting a possible conflict of interest. ()Curb Chain (talk) 01:37, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

• The ban was not imposed by Bishonen, it was imposed by the community after discussion, with Bishonen acting as agent for the community's wishes. The original AN ban discussion can be found here. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:59, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
• Curb Chain; Apteva is already testing the community's patience in regards to wikilawyering about the technicalities of topic bans... Do you REALLY want to be the one in the firing line when the banhammer is swung when the patience runs out? PantherLeapord|My talk page|My CSD log 08:35, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

• Curb Chain has previously brought this up on their talkpage; for my response, please see here. There I also recommended them to "If you wish to contest your ban or any aspect of it, including my closure of the ANI thread, please do so on WP:AN". That's what they're doing, even if a little belatedly, as I closed that thread six weeks ago. I don't think I acted improperly in closing it, and even if I did, I don't believe anybody else would have summarized the thread differently. It contained substantial complaints about Curb Chain's editing of list articles, and not least, it contained references to several previous, unactioned, ANI threads with similar complaints, showing a long-term problem. Curb Chain, if you have other rationales for revisiting your topic ban besides the IMO rather formal one of who closed the thread, it would make sense to present them here. Bishonen | talk 08:47, 1 August 2013 (UTC).

• The topic ban was created by the community (who enacts it is irrelevant) - and any lifting of it would need to be based on arguments surrounding what has been done by the editor since that would warrant such a lifting (✉→BWilkins←✎) 08:59, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

• Looking at the discussion, I think it's safe to say that I would have closed it the same way - though note that I commented in the early part of the thread. And if there were a conflict of interest (a fact I do not stipulate), the time to raise that issue was when the ban was proposed, in the same thread. What has changed from then to now?But let's set aside the COI issue for the moment - the question you have to answer at this point is this: Curb Chain, how do you plan to edit List articles if the topic ban were removed? UltraExactZZ ~ Did 12:18, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

• I am left wondering, if Curb Chain felt that Bishonen's close was inappropriate on purely procedural grounds – given the form of the request, there's no indication that Curb Chain is appealing or addressing the substance of the discussion or topic ban – why he didn't raise the issue for review six weeks ago, when the discussion was closed and the topic ban imposed (18 June). Or three days later, when Bishonen (and others) raised concerns about Curb Chain's editing of an article in violation of the topic ban, and Curb Chain complained on his talk page about Bishonen's close and was advised that WP:AN would be the correct venue for a procedural appeal (21 June). Instead of appealing Bishonen's closure, Curb Chain then went ahead and started asking Bishonen to carry out edits on his behalf, apparently not quite getting that his topic ban applied in userspace as well as article space: User talk:Bishonen#List of blues rock musicians (22 June). TenOfAllTrades(talk) 13:16, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
• Note also that Curb Chain violated his (broadly construed) list topic ban about a half hour before posting this here, by challenging another editor's use of a particular source for an entry they added to List of progressive metal artists (see Curb Chain's comment here); ironically, the same editor who had started the previous ANI thread resulting in his topic ban. Curb Chain just can't leave these things alone and has not even demonstrated any awareness or understanding of the problems other editors have had with him. He also failed to notify Bishonen of this post (I took care of it), despite the very clear warning you must do so above the edit box when you post anything here. Just more evidence of his general lack of observance and lack of care here. postdlf (talk) 13:39, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
  • I think the broadly construed bit was taken out of the ban when it went final - but you don't need to broadly construe anything to see that Curb Chain is banned from involvement in List articles. That includes commenting on them, exhorting other editors to make particular edits on his behalf, and other similar edits that don't involve actual edits to the article itself. It's a topic ban - the topic being "List articles". Violating the ban is a really really good indication that the ban should not be lifted at this time. UltraExactZZ ~ Did 18:12, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
    • "I think the broadly construed bit was taken out of the ban when it went final" Actually, that's not true, and Curb Chain (CC) has been aware of that since at least June 22, 2013. CC really hasn't been doing much editing on Misplaced Pages since June 18th - when his list topic ban was originally put in place. To be fair, it's summertime in the Northern Hemisphere (assuming that CC is in the Northern Hemisphere), and I'm not sure if Misplaced Pages editing drops off in the summertime or not. It does appear to me though that at least one of the primary areas that CC was interested in editing here on Misplaced Pages was list articles, so the ban still seems appropriate from my perspective, which (again, to be fair) is the perspective of the editor that originally complained about CC's behavior at AN/I. Guy1890 (talk) 20:47, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
      • I was looking here, and there it is right at the bottom, clear as day. Mea Culpa. It is a side issue, though - the violation seems clear. UltraExactZZ ~ Did 22:35, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
• No --Guerillero | My Talk 16:03, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
• I was a participant in the original discussion (as 86.121.18.17), but I really don't see how any uninvolved admin/editor could have closed it differently than what Bishonen did. So it's not a violation of WP:INVOLVED (which is probably what Curb Chain means by "conflict of interest"). Since then, Curb Chain has edited very little in general but has violated his topic ban quite a few times, showing a lack of understanding as to the concerns that led to his editing being restricted. I suggest declining this request, and perhaps extending the duration of the topic ban until he can show some evidence of collaborative editing elsewhere. Although he may have a big edit count, most of Curb Chain's edits are gnoming over some formatting issues only he seems to care about, which is probably why his style of editing got him into trouble once he started to apply it to some content issues others cared about. Someone not using his real name (talk) 23:51, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
• In addition to the straightforwardness of the close, there is probably an argument to be made that attempting to resolve a case at the Administrator's Noticeboard is participating in one's role as an administrator. (I'm not aware of any past attempts to claim as much, and if its been done, have no idea how it turned out) Regardless of whether we find a way to rationalize the close or not, at best, the discussion would be reclosed by a new admin with the same result, so there really isn't a point in splitting hairs over it. Still, best practice is to let a totally independent editor/admin handle the close so as to avoid the need for just this sort of discussion. Monty₈₄₅ 00:30, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

• Just a reminder that WP:UNINVOLVED says: "he community has historically endorsed the obvious action of any administrator – even if involved – on the basis that any reasonable administrator would have probably come to the same conclusion", so that's the standard that's to be used here, not whether Bishonen was "involved" or had a "conflict of interest" because she participated in the discussion, but would any reasonable administrator have come to a different conclusion and closed the discussion differently? I would say that the answer to that is clearly "No". The community discussion was fairly straight-forward and clear, and the close was appropriate to it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:58, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

• Indeed, there is bupkis to be contested about the closure. The only question here is who throws the WP:BOOMERANG and blocks Curb Chain for violating his topic ban. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:31, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
• While it was incredibly silly for Bishonen to propose the topic ban and then close the discussion, it appears to be the same decision that anyone else would make. My question for CC is, do you understand what a list article is, and why they rarely have any references? If they can answer that question suitably, I see no reason for not lifting the ban. Apteva (talk) 10:37, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
  • I would like to know the answer as well - Curb Chain has not edited since starting this discussion 4 days ago. UltraExactZZ ~ Did 14:22, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
    • I suspect at this point that this entry here by CC was just an attempt to needlessly waste everyone's time. To basically amend my previous comments, CC hasn't made as few edits as they have recently since December of 2011...so it seems that the recent topic ban is having its desired effect. Without rehashing the details that have been discussed in numerous other places, it has been suspected for a while that the CC Misplaced Pages account was not CC's first (or only existing) Misplaced Pages account. They may be editing under another name(s)...who knows... Guy1890 (talk) 22:39, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
      • They may be editing under another name(s) - or IP(s). Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:49, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Closing this

• There obviously isn't anything else to say here, particularly since Curb Chain hasn't bothered to actually participate in the discussion they started. I propose a block of one week for both the topic ban violation and for wasting everyone's time here, with what might as well have been intentional trolling for the complete lack of merit, failure to follow through, and lack of timeliness to this half-assed complaint about how the topic ban was implemented. postdlf (talk) 14:51, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Tammy Duckworth RfC

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Hello. Last week, I initiated an RfC on Talk:Tammy Duckworth regarding the exclusion of the subject's date of birth, as per WP:BLP. A discussion started to develop over the next several days, but was closed today by Srich32977.

I am requesting that the closure be overturned, and that the RfC be allowed to continue. RfCs usually last for 30 days, so this discussion was closed prematurely. Since there were several editors weighing in on both sides of the debate, a consensus had not yet been formed. Edge3 (talk) 01:48, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

The discussion was reopened by Hot Stop. It seems that the RfC is continuing, but I welcome input from all interested editors. For the record, I have notified Srich32977 of this discussion. Edge3 (talk) 02:00, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Nevermind... the reopening was reverted. Edge3 (talk) 02:05, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

And I, in turn, reverted Hot Stop. I was asked to re-open the RfC and I declined. This ANI is the only proper forum and the reopening of the RfC must be done by an admin. – S. Rich (talk) 02:14, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

• This was really a never valid RfC to begin with, as WP:DOB is pretty crystal-clear policy on what to do when the subject communicates their desires regarding the reporting of their date-of-birth. Everything else is irrelevant once "If the subject complains about the inclusion of the date of birth, or the person is borderline notable, err on the side of caution and simply list the year" criteria is met. Tarc (talk) 02:19, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

  The "include" side was also citing Misplaced Pages policies, such as WP:WELLKNOWN and WP:OPENPARA. Since policy was being cited on both sides, we were having a legitimate discussion. I was not attempting to "set aside" policy, but rather seek community input on how to interpret all of the relevant policies in the context of this specific article. Edge3 (talk) 02:40, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

• The issue in the Duckworth RfC (as it has been in 5 previous discussions) is whether Duckworth's date of birth should be included. All prior discussions have closed with the determination that WP:DOB policy be followed. There seemed to be little point (or authority) in seeking consensus to ignore policy in this case, so I closed it. (I was asked to reopen, but declined.) – S. Rich (talk) 02:25, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
• What Tarc said. It seems to me that the proper course of action would be to start an RfC on the policy, rather than on a specific BLP. --NeilN 02:29, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
• What utter nonsense, for her to claim that that some "identity thief" will obtain her date of birth from her Misplaced Pages biography, when she is a well known public figure, in the United States Congress, and her exact date of birth is included in her official US Congress biography. Edison (talk) 03:35, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

• Fully agree. We may not censor something that's reliably published in secondary sources, and even if we've gotten an official communique from Congresswoman Duckworth objecting to the presence of her birthday in the article (very unlikely), we need to remind her that her birthday is already present on a well known congressional website and tell her to complain to the Clerk of the United States House of Representatives to get her birthdate off that page first. Read the first sentence of WP:DOB and remember that the context here is protecting privacy, which definitely isn't being protected by the well known congressional website. Nyttend (talk) 03:46, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

• No one cares if you agree or disagree; we do not change policy via RfC on a bio's talk page. WP:DOB is pretty clear on the matter, in that "subject requests removal == the removal is performed". What else on the the Internets the info appears is not relevant to the policy spelled out at that page. Tarc (talk) 03:55, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

It looks like Nyttend has un-hatted the closure on the RfC, so this discussion can end. But I will add that I am surprised – and disappointed. I would hope that policy would prevail here. (It probably will at the RfC, after more and more of the same merry-go-round.) Sadly, the rationale for re-opening the RfC stands WP:DOB on its head. The policy says "anyone" who requests can have the DOB info limited to YOB. The "why" of the policy may be weak, but that does not justify ignoring the policy. The real confounded logic/justification for re-opening the RfC goes like this: People who are notable enough to have articles in WP should be aware that their notability will result in an exception to the DOB policy so long as there is some RS that gives out their DOB. Therefore, don't make the request for any reason because it will be ignored if enough editors get together to override the specific provisions of the policy. Nor will we allow people to dictate to us what policy to follow. The first sentence of the policy then becomes an exception for everyone with RS-supported info in WP, and that is not the policy. Censorship? My gosh! "Include DOB otherwise you are engaging in censorship." Really quite disappointing. – S. Rich (talk) 04:25, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

If that is in fact the WP:DOB policy, it completely flies in the face of WP:COMMONSENSE and WP:NOTCENSORED. If (in this case) her official Congressional biography and the Washington Times list her precise date of birth, restricting her Misplaced Pages article to only listing the year does nothing other than feed the nabobs who like to point at Misplaced Pages and laugh about how inaccurate, stupid, and stupidly inaccurate we are. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:19, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

I think the RfC should be on WP:DOB rather than on this specific case. Feels like a policy that is broken (at least on the edges). Hobit (talk) 09:56, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

As there is no DOB/N noticeboard, the only noticeboard applicable was, in fact, BLP/N. If you wish to start a DOB/N noticeboard, then start a discussion to create one. Duckworth almost absolutely has some control over her official biography, and to ignore that control is ludicrous. Collect (talk) 12:52, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Ah, sorry I was unclear. I mean I think the discussion should be about changing WP:DOB. So the discussion should be on changing WP:DOB rather than on this specific case. If WP:DOB does get changed we could revisit this specific case. I wasn't proposing changing the venue for the discussion. Hobit (talk) 02:11, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Have we forgotten about WP:IAR. All policies other than actual legal requirements can be modified in individual cases. We make our own rules, and we make our own exceptions. I agree we should be very careful and conservative about using IAR with BLP and especially BLPs with privacy issues, but when something actually has no privacy issue, then the solution is to do what is right & reasonable, rather than further complicate policy. IAR is intended to preserve us from literalism. DGG ( talk ) 20:36, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

IAR works if ignoring the rule if doing so improves or maintains WP. I maintain that IAR applies to the project, not our views on individual articles. The Duckworth article is an example of people fighting over whether the DOB policy as it pertains to that particular article (not WP as a whole) should be ignored, and they are citing IAR as justification. I've asked/tried to get that talkpage discussion moved over here so that the vagueness or validity of the WP DOB policy (not just as it applies to Duckworth) can be resolved. Sadly there are no takers so far, not even from Admins, who should be enforcing policy. It seems that people want to focus that BLP, and they cite IAR as justification. And when the "consensus" conflicts or does not coincide with policy, WP looks bad. Improving WP is what's needed here. We can do so best by getting clarification on where and for whom DOB applies. And I urge Admins to move the discussion over here. The result of the community discussion, as opposed to the Duckworth group, will apply to Duckworth and other BLPs. – S. Rich (talk) 21:11, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

The policies clearly state that the information has to be "noteworthy" to be included and in my opinion the exact date of birth is not "noteworthy" and so does not qualify for an exemption (granted there may be a few exceptions --like the birth of an heir to the throne, or a saint who gets honored that day). Rjensen (talk) 03:43, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Edward Snowden#Government bias and edition of the page

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

an IP - 99.252.209.195 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has posted his/her latest conspiracy theory; and has posted an external link which I cant verify is safe, can an admin review this please. LGA _talk 09:44, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Not an admin here, but here are the facts:

• This edit from a particular IP address changed the wording from "Edward Joseph Snowden is an American dissident" to "Edward Joseph Snowden is an American traitor"
• Go to the IP's User_talk:156.33.241.5 page, and it says that "This IP address, 156.33.241.5, is registered to United States Senate and may be shared by multiple users of a government agency or facility."
• For further confirmation, go to Special:Contributions/156.33.241.5 and click on "GEOLOCATE" and the IP will be traced back to the United States Senate.

By labelling someone as a traitor, this IP is pushing a strong POV that clearly violates WP:BLP and was done without consensus from other Misplaced Pages users, but this is not entirely surprising given that the IP is from the government -A1candidate (talk) 10:05, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, A1candidate, Misplaced Pages is no place for paid shills who try to clean up the mistakes of Senate. Given the talk page of LGA, he/she has been warned multiple times for inappropriate behavior involving the wiping and predilection of multiple Misplaced Pages pages. Seems like a paid shill and shouldn't be allowed on Misplaced Pages, as this is supposed to be an impartial area for information. 99.252.209.195 (talk) 10:19, 3 August 2013 (UTC) swams/pol/

• Ok, the IP from the senate made one edit to the Snowden article, for which they have received four separate messages from four different users (including myself). It has been discussed here and is under discussion at the Snowden talk page. I don't think we need an ongoing thread here as well. Beeblebrox (talk) 15:48, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Misleading template

It seems like some people outside wp are reading template:Shared IP gov as is transcluded on User talk:156.33.241.5 as actually being a block notice, and that Misplaced Pages has blocked this user. That might be blowing things slightly out of proportion. Such notice templates may need a bit of tweaking ;-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 15:36, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Request Block of IP 109.156.190.242

IP user 109.156.190.242 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) has been making repeated blatant vandalism of the article "The Smiler (roller coaster)" (changing the the rollercoaster's name from "The Smiler" to "The Failer"). When the vandalism is undone, the user reverts the edits. In-spite of final warning, user has reverted the corrections back to "the failer" three times. --Rushton2010 (talk) 02:30, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

IP blocked Mfield (Oi!) 02:33, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your quick response. --Rushton2010 (talk) 02:40, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Morts623 unblock request

Morts623 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) was blocked indefinitely in January 2011 by Kuru, and now wishes to invoke the standard offer. This is the text of their request (UTRS #8400), which they have agreed to have copied here:

I believe I should be unblocked because back then when I did whatever it was that got me blocked, I was a teenager. I know there were times where I did some disruptive editing and there were times I've blanked some pages, but that was a long time ago when I was a teenager. I understand what I did was wrong and I promise not to ever do it again. I would like to be forgiven for what I did.

Please review this unblock request and determine whether Morts623 should be allowed back. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:54, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

• My inclination would be to let them take advantage of the standard offer assuming they haven't socked, or done anything else wrong since their talk page access was revoked. While they clearly earned the block in the past, the conduct was the sort of thing that a couple years may make a difference.That they are asking to be unblocked, rather then socking, speaks well for them. I think another chance is in order. Maybe ask them to address the articles they created which needed to be deleted, just to make sure that problematic articles wont reoccur as an issue. Monty₈₄₅ 14:45, 5 August 2013 (UTC)Struck in light of CUnote. Reconsider in 6+ months. Monty₈₄₅ 03:09, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
• The phrase "back then when I did whatever it was that got me blocked" gives me zero confidence whatsoever - if they don't even know why they were blocked then how do we know they will not repeat it? GiantSnowman 14:58, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
• Unblock - Reaper Eternal (talk) 15:36, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
• Like Monty, I think that it's an admirable display of honesty to request unblocking of the original account instead of just creating a new one (technically a policy violation, but rather easy to get away with after several years). On that basis alone, I support unblocking. Nonetheless, since we had a very persuasive unblock request the other week by someone who turned out to still be socking, a CheckUser query might be prudent. — PublicAmpers& 15:52, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

•  Checkuser note: I can confirm that this user evaded their block by editing while logged out between June and July of this year. Tiptoety 03:05, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Tiptoey - don't think I'm being mean or anything, but I tend to assume a ton of good faith. If you still remember the evidence, was it undeniably him (as in, there is absolutely no possible explanation)? If he's telling the truth and he hasn't edited in 6+ months it could've been a family member, an internet cafe, a school, etc... I think we may need more clarification from him (Morts) if there's any chance he's telling the truth. ~Charmlet 03:40, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
    • There is always another possible explanation and  CheckUser is not magic pixie dust. That said, I am sure it is him. Both the technical data and the behavioral evidence back it up. Tiptoety 03:49, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Hmm... Well, that's a shame. Before I strike my !vote, and while being aware that you can't go into much detail about the edits, could you perhaps give us a summary of their extent? I.e., was this a handful of small edits, or something broader or deeper? (I'm aware that the former is still block evasion, but if it's only a few edits, then, who knows, perhaps it was those edits that made them remember how much they liked editing Misplaced Pages, and made them want to come back "the right way".) — PublicAmpers& 14:29, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
    • They made a handful of small edits. Tiptoety 16:21, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
      • Could you characterize them as productive, neutral, or provocative/destructive? Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 19:03, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose unblock - given CU results & history. GiantSnowman 14:50, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
• Support unblock – I'm inclined to assume good faith. It's been over two and a half years since the user was blocked, and the user's unblock request indicates (at least to me) a willingness to change their behavior. It's time to allow this user back. If the user continues to be disruptive, they can be reblocked. Heymid (contribs) 21:04, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
• Support unblock - I'm thinking we assume good faith and leave them some rope. I would however he very interested in Morts623's explanation of the socking plus the area they would like to edit in if they are unblocked. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:02, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
• Support unblock - I always believe in second (10th) chances. But in case of unblock even a small overstepping of Misplaced Pages guidelines should be met with a block again.--BabbaQ (talk) 12:04, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Rangeblock of troll

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I have evidently offended blocked user Georgy gladkov (talk · contribs), who has taken to writing "You are a jew? Is'nt it?", "HeilHitler!" and the like on my talk page. Fortunately the range of IPs is small, and after the fifth message this morning I blocked 217.118.78.0/25 for 31 hours. I bring it here (a) for review because I am the target, and (b) for opinions about a longer rangeblock if it continues. JohnCD (talk) 13:11, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

"Yo, Judío" - Jorge Luis Borges.

Your blocks are fine, unsure if a wider range is needed at this time. GiantSnowman 14:00, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

There may be a small amount of collateral damage from the block, but it can be extended for a few days if necessary, and the /25 will probably be sufficient. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 14:26, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Seems like a good block to me. Technical 13 (talk) 14:29, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

If this continues to be a problem, an edit filter may be a good alternative to longer term rangeblocks, but looks fine for now. Monty₈₄₅ 15:02, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Cromulent block, for an appropriate time frame. -- Diannaa (talk) 19:26, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Request to amend sanctions on Syrian civil war articles

The motion on Syrian civil war articles (see ) concludes that a number of Syrian conflict-related articles, which had been 1RR sanctioned under ARBPIA from March until July 2013 (including 3 blockings and 1 warning), in general do not fit the general category of Arab-Israeli disputes. However, since there is a general agreement that 1RR sanctions are required on relevant Syrian civil war articles due to edit-warring and sock-puppeting, those articles shall continue to fall under ARBPIA restriction for 30 days and in the meanwhile a discussion would be opened at WP:AN (this discussion) in order to determine whether there is consensus to continue the restrictions in effect as community-based restrictions, either as they currently exist or in a modified form; also any notifications and sanctions are meanwhile to be logged at Talk:Syrian civil war/Log. I herewith propose the community to apply on alternative sanction tool (perhaps "Syrian civil war 1RR tool") on relevant Syrian civil war articles, in order to properly resolve the existing edit-warring problem, prevent confusion of editors and administrators regarding if and when the sanctions are relevant, and in a way to reduce automatic association of Syrian conflict with the generally unrelated Israeli-Palestinian conflict.Greyshark09 (talk) 20:27, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Case summary

This request comes as a result of motion (see ), passed regarding Syrian civil war articles on 21 July, following an Arbcom request for amendment and clarification (see ). The issue was also previously discussed at Talk:Syrian civil war and recommended for Arbcom solution by an involved administrator (see ).

As an initiator of the original request for amendment and clarification, i would like to bring to community's attention the dilemma of problematic application of ARBPIA restriction on Syrian civil war articles, though acknowledging that 1RR restriction for some (or possibly all) Syrian civil war related articles is most probably required. As concluded by the Arbcom motion on July 21, there is no general relation of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and the expanded conflict between Israel and Arab League (ARBPIA sanctions) to the ongoing Syrian conflict, except perhaps some separate incidents. In addition:

• the several limited incidents (without fatalities) on Israeli-Syrian border during Quneitra Governorate fighting between rebels and government are a WP:UNDUE reason to extend 1RR over entire Syrian civil war topic area; moreover Syrian Ba'athist government is no longer a part of the Arab League, while its seat is supposed to be given to Syrian opposition, which is so far neutral to Israel.
• the use 1RR tool at Syrian civil war articles prior to the above described motion had not even distantly related in any way to the Israel-Palestine topic (see sanctioned cases , ). Some editors also pointed out that application of ARBPIA tool, while referring only to certain aspects of Syrian conflict, creates a great deal of confusion for both editors and administrators when and where 1RR application is relevant.
• the incidents of air or missile attacks, allegedly performed by Israel against Iranian, Hezbollah and Syrian Ba'athist targets in Syria, may fall under the Iran-Israel proxy conflict and most probably not the generally preceding and different conflict between Israel and the Arab League.

It is hence required that ARBPIA sanctions would be replaced by other relevant sanctions tool on Syrian conflict.Greyshark09 (talk) 20:27, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

Please put further comments and opinions here.

• Proposed.Greyshark09 (talk) 21:29, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
• The Syrian civil war is far from an Arab-Israeli conflict. Not even close. Currently, only the Syria article, the Syrian civil war article and its military infobox template are under ARBPIA restrictions. Most of the edit-warring in the Syria conflict topic has been fought over the military infobox and also the what the legitimate flag of Syria should be. Other articles related to the Syrian civil war are not under any sanctions, and it should stay that way. These other articles do not frequently experience edit wars. I support replacing ARBPIA with something more relevant, but oppose placing any more articles than the 3 I mentioned under 1RR restrictions.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 20:59, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
• Given the on-wiki conflict over the real-life conflict, I see no reason to get rid of the sanctions. Yes, it shouldn't be under ARBPIA restrictions, but maintaining the 1RR etc probation is helpful. Let's change nothing except for the reason behind the restrictions. Nyttend (talk) 01:08, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
• I agree with Nyttend: this is an area of considerable controversy among Misplaced Pages editors, and the 1RR restrictions are necessary in this subject area in their own right. As such, they should be maintained. Nick-D (talk) 06:44, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
• As an editor that works in military history space in an (at the very least) equally contentious area (the Balkans in WWII), I thoroughly agree with Nyttend on this. Where 1RR has been applied under ARBMAC (for example), it has tended to reduce the amount of edit-warring and other nonsense. It encourages real contributors onto the talk page where these matters should be discussed, and deters trolls and other ne'er-do-well's. My point is that ARBMAC was originally only for Macedonia, but has now been applied to all Balkans-related articles, broadly defined. That, in my opinion, is a good thing, as it focuses editors on contributing, instead of edit-warring over minutiae. Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 08:53, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
• Not only do I completely agree with Nyttend, but I actually think the Syrian civil war should be placed under discretionary sanctions on its own merits. Do you know what will happen if there's nothing in place to prevent POV-pushing? There will be two distinctive groups trying to reshape the main article and all other related pages based on their perception of the confict:

1. Pro-Assad editors of every sort, whether they be patriotic Shiite Muslims or far-left conspiracy theorists. They will try to paint the dictator in an unduly positive light by mitigating the negative coverage of his regime, all the while emphasizing any and all incidents attributed to either the Free Syrian Army or the al-Nusra Front to make it seem as if the entire rebellion is an Islamist insurgency backed by Western governments.
2. Anti-Assad editors who reject the very notion that significant atrocities have also been committed by the rebels (particularly the al-Nusra Front), and will work to sweep any mention of terrorism against the regime under the rug.

There is general consensus among independent observers that both sides have committed war crimes, but that the Assad regime's offences far eclipse those of the rebels. Nevertheless, we must avoid giving undue weight to either side. It needs to be made clear that Assad loyalists are behind most of the abuses, but their opponents have also staged attacks against security and civilian targets. The last time I visited the article, this was already achieved. Allowing either of the aforementioned groups free reign over pages related to the civil war will jeopardize our efforts to cover the topic in an impartial manner. Kurtis 16:18, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

• Fist, I'm opposed to shoehorning conduct into a policy that doesn't fit. Outside the Isreal related articles, its clearly outside ARBPIA, and the sanctions do not apply. As a practical matter, by the time we reach consensus on that, we could have already reached consensus on sanctions generally. The ARBPIA sanction regime is particularly aggressive, in that, in addition to the imposition of discretionary sanctions, it applies a blanket 1rr rule to the entire topic area, . I think standard community imposed discretionary sanctions would be more appropriate, which could of course involve revert restrictions on certain articles if required. Monty₈₄₅ 20:57, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
• I support ongoing 1RR and discretionary sanctions as a community sanction in Syria-related articles, for the forseeable future. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 18:54, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Discussion about unblocking Science Apologist

ScienceApologist (Previously_ScienceApologist (talk · contribs)) wishes to be unblocked. His contributions have been of high quality, while there has been some issues with socking in the four years he has been blocked for socking (this has formed into a vicious cycle, the only reason his block has continue is because he wants to edit wikipedia). He also did have some bad interactions with editors in the past who have themselves, for the most part, now been blocked or left (we are talking 4 years ago after all). Considering the only issue is that he wants to edit wikipedia but can't, the easiest means of rectifying the situation is an unblock. SA is willing to accept additional requirements to provide reassurances to people: "I accept any conditions on an unblock". Thoughts? SA notified by email IRWolfie- (talk) 18:17, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

• Comment. No recommendation, at the moment. But unblocking would set a precedent - sock until the community gets tired of dealing with it and you're unblocked. One would think that the best way to convince the community that you intend to follow the rules would be to - wait for it - follow the rules. UltraExactZZ ~ Did 18:37, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

No socking in at least the last two months. IRWolfie- (talk) 18:38, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

But he socked for the previous 3 years 10 months? GiantSnowman 18:39, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

I don't follow your wording. There have been instances of socking in the last 4 years, but not in at least the last two months. Also, as far as I am aware, SA did not sock before this while unblocked. What are you preventing by having him blocked? IRWolfie- (talk) 18:43, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

You say he has been blocked for 4 years but hasn't socked for 2 months. That implies he socked for 3 years 10 months. GiantSnowman 18:47, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

I did not imply, you inferred, and I don't agree. If I said you hadn't socked for at least the last 2 months, it doesn't mean you were socking before that. It means what I said, that in the last 2 month period there were no socks. IRWolfie- (talk) 19:17, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

But he has socked - numerous times, as you say so yourself in your opening post. GiantSnowman 19:26, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

No I didn't. I said "there has been some issues with socking", that isn't the same as "numerous times". Can you focus on the unblock request itself rather than whether I implied X or Y. IRWolfie- (talk) 19:39, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Apologies for thinking that "issues with socking" isn't all hunky-dory. GiantSnowman 20:00, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

(ec) For those in the audience who haven't been following this matter closely, could you provide a bit more information and context?

1. Is there a link to the original discussion (AN/I or ArbCom or what?) that led him to be blocked/banned(?) in the first place? Could someone provide a brief description of the events that led him to be banned/blocked?
2. Regarding block evasion with socks, when and how many? When was the last one?
3. On reasons why an unblock would be a good idea, can the justification be expanded a bit beyond 'most of the people he was fighting with are gone'? (I mean, I suspect that there are at least a few new editors who might disagree with ScienceApologist now.)
4. Regarding the desire for an unblock, where or how did he make the request? Does he have any statement that he would like to make on his own behalf?
5. What has happened with previous unblock requests, if any?
6. What conditions, restrictions, or topic bans was he under prior to his block/ban, and would there be any such restrictions if he were unblocked?

I'm not trying to shoot down this request, nor to pre-judge or imply a preference for any particular outcome, but there's a lot of information missing. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 18:45, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

1. Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration/Fringe_science#Motion_to_sanction_ScienceApologist. I did not edit wikipedia until late 2010, so you will need to ask an arbcom member or such for an exact account. Anything I say will be based on reading the various logs and old arbcom cases.
2. Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet_investigations/ScienceApologist. Timotheus Canens (talk · contribs) appears to have indicated that Eliminatesoapboxing (talk · contribs) was the last sock.
3. SA makes very high quality edits to both astronomy/science articles as well as fringe subjects. Even if he were not permitted to edit articles directly, his advice he could provide at WP:FTN would be invaluable.
4. His desire for an unblock is stated all over his userpage, and in his recent ArbCom request (ArbCom rejected the request on the grounds of jurisdiction; indicating that it was not an arbcom block and things should be taken to AN/ANI or similar).
5. His last unblock was rejected stating he had a block log that was too long and that an unblock would not be considered.
6. The initial block was for 3 months per Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration/Fringe_science#Motion_to_sanction_ScienceApologist. That has since expired. New restrictions are up for discussion here, so I can't answer that question. IRWolfie- (talk) 19:12, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

This was also discussed last week at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 22:20, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

• non admin second chance !vote a 3 month block, from 2011, extended to true infinity seems excessive in the absence of a arbcom decision or wider consensus of a community ban. Certainly the repeated socking is problematic, and while block avoidance is troublesome, he was not using the socks for otherwise nefarious purposes (trying to swing consensus etc). I think a Misplaced Pages:Standard offer, with a very short leash can be appropriate, especially in light of the judgement that his edits are generally of high quality. Per the discussion above, he has not socked for 2 months : When is the last time he was caught socking? The standard offer suggests 6 months. Could the 2 months be counted towards this, and reset his block to 4 months? Or in a worst case scenario give him the full 6 months starting now? Gaijin42 (talk) 19:31, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

• Extend standard offer - this would be a terrible precedent to set. If there's any reason this is a "special case" then reduce the sock-free period required from 6 months to 3, but some indication that this user is willing to play by the rules is needed. Basalisk ⁄_berate 19:54, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. We've gone down this road before. "You made me sock because you kicked me out" is one of the least compelling arguments I can think of. If he can show the self control to follow the standard offer for the full six-month period, that's much more compelling, and even then I'd like to see a CU run just to be sure. Other times we winked at block evasion it has not ended well. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:57, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

• I have a couple questions before I weigh in. How have the confirmed SA socks behaved? (The only one I can recall is the one who kept trying to delete Wikipe-tan.) Have his socks been editing constructively or engaging in disruption? What are the most recent socks that we know of? Mark Arsten (talk) 21:14, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

• I think pointily is the best way to describe it. NativeForeigner 21:33, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

I don't think any of the socks were identified as being problematic. i.e if they weren't socks they would not have been blocked, IRWolfie- (talk) 21:51, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

• I agree the standard offer is the way forward here. If an editor can't comply with our straightforward policy on socking for six months then that isn't very promising for any possible return to editing. As noted above Eliminatesoapboxing (talk · contribs) was still editing two months ago. Hut 8.5 21:20, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
• Comment - here is the information on SA:

Block log

Declined ArbCom Unblock request

SPI records

Note that Checkuser confirmed that SA used two socks as recently as two months ago.

I don't believe that he has shown he can abide by rules, and would oppose a standard offer.

Disclosure - SA and I have a negative history. I'm not going to go into anything else on the matter or discuss the history. GregJackP Boomer! 21:56, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Calling it "declined arbcom unblock request" is kind of missing the point of why they declined. They referred the case to AN (as I mentioned above). IRWolfie- (talk) 07:44, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Would you have rather I called it a "rejected" request? I did not contradict your statement that it should go to AN. In any event, SA's pattern of repeatedly violating rules that he doesn't agree with bodes ill as a reason for unblocking him. GregJackP Boomer! 11:21, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose unblock - Support standard offer - If SA really has changed, six months of no socking (verified by CU) would be sufficient to give him another chance. If think he has things to offer to the encyclopedia, if he could just moderate his behavior. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:42, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
• SA has done excellent work in defending the encyclopedia from crankery, but the avalanche of nonsense with the continual arrival of "new" editors ready to argue the same points over and over wore him down. I support any unblock appeal from SA that includes a brief statement explaining how he will deal with that problem. I would suggest, for example, that if a group of new editors were to start using Homeopathy to promote the sale of bottles of water to cure disease, then SA should just walk away after doing a few reverts or posting a dozen comments in a week—leave it to someone else. We routinely unblock disruptive editors who have no record of improving the encyclopedia, and per WP:ROPE, there is no problem with unblocking SA who does have a long record of improving the encyclopedia. Johnuniq (talk) 22:55, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
• The argument that someone should be unblocked because we can't permanently stop them from evading their block is not sensible, and should be rejected out of hand. The sustained socking and unhelpful editing behavior set out at Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/ScienceApologist/Archive appears to indicate that not much has changed since the conduct which led to the block (as set out at Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Fringe science#ScienceApologist). As such, I see no grounds to unblock, so I oppose this proposal. WP:STANDARDOFFER obviously applies, but it would also need to be accompanied by a convincing commitment to avoid the conduct which led to the block. Nick-D (talk) 08:44, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose unblock - having looked into this further, I feel an editor who cannot go 2 months without abiding by basic rules (i.e. no socking!) should not be unblocked at this time. Standard offer applies - 6 months is the minimum for me. GiantSnowman 08:56, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Then why not support, at a minimum, changing the indefinite block to 4 months? The issue is that his current requests are being rejected out of hand . IRWolfie- (talk) 10:41, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Because what if he socks again in that time? Indefinite =/= forever, as you full well know. Evidence 6 months of sock-free-ness and then we can review. GiantSnowman 10:44, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

One might argue that a reduced to four month block doesn't mean "Don't sock for four more months" but "Don't get caught socking for four more months". The difference is not insignificant. UltraExactZZ ~ Did 12:13, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

• Support unblock. Two points: You might call Science Apologist the AndyTheGrump of his time. Kww's rationale, also at the recent RFAR, for keeping him blocked is interesting, almost provocative: "If this were an ideal world, I would simply ban most of the editors that SA disagrees with, as that would eliminate both the edit warring and things like Misplaced Pages's excessively gullible point of view towards crystal worship, homeopathy, electric voice phenomena, vaccine hysteria, and similar topics. This isn't an ideal world though, and SA's contributions, while nearly invariably right, served to galvanize the forces intent on inserting these things into articles. … I've advocated banning all pseudoscience advocates from Misplaced Pages before, and continue to believe that's the best solution. Until we do that, though, SA's presence is counterproductive." (Please read the whole.) As with Swift's Modest Proposal for eating babies, it's logical, I have to reluctantly agree with the reasoning, but is there really no other way? What will blocking the defenders of the wiki do — what is it doing — to article quality? I'm getting really cynical about this project and its openness to "crystal worship, homeopathy, electric voice phenomena" etc. Secondly, in his recent unblock appeal to ArbCom, Science Apologist says he wasn't socking, but other people at his institution were using the same IP or "user agent" (I don't even understand what that means) and that he has no way of ensuring that the same thing won't happen again in the next four months. Therefore he fears never being able to benefit from the Standard Offer. His tone is a little uncertain; if I understand it, he's not denying all socking, but only the more recent cases (supported by checkuser like the others). If there are technical or other reasons for not assuming good faith and believing him, can someone explain them to me, please? Bishonen | talk 12:11, 6 August 2013 (UTC).
  • Just to answer the "user agent" question, a user agent is some piece of software you use to do stuff on the Internet. When you edit Misplaced Pages or otherwise browse the Web, you fire up Internet Explorer or Safari or Firefox... this is your user agent. Each piece of Web-browsing software identifies itself to the websites with a string of characters that provides the name of the piece of software, its version number, etc. so that the website can deliver Web pages in a format that works with your browser. This user agent string is one of the things checkusers use to determine if two accounts are coming from the same computer, or possibly coming from a bank of computers all managed by the same IT department. For more detail, take a look at User agent. Zad68 13:07, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
    • Thanks, Zad, but I only wanted to indicate that I didn't wholly understand what I was quoting — I didn't mean it greatly matters what "user agent" means. My actual question right at the end, though, "If there are technical or other reasons for not assuming good faith and believing him, can someone explain them to me, please?", is something I'd really, really like to know, and I wish somebody would address it. Are there any checkusers or otherwise technically savvy people reading this thread? Furthermore: I think ScienceApologist should be invited to take part in this discussion, as he did in the RFAR. I have told him on his page that I'd be happy to move any comments he makes on his page to this thread. Though I think it's a silly long way round, mind you. In my opinion he should be unblocked for the purpose of taking part here in the normal fashion. (Only here.) Bishonen | talk 20:46, 6 August 2013 (UTC).
• Comment. Let me throw some more random numbers in - If SA is worthy of a standard offer now, but just has to wait four months... I dunno, why not throw him to the wolves now (so to speak) and see how he does? The more I think about this, the more I come to think that we either need to unblock him now - or not at all. UltraExactZZ ~ Did 12:17, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose community unblock. The check-user information being disputed in not public. It's up to ArbCom to decide whom to believe. Someone not using his real name (talk) 16:03, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

You appear to have missed the point that they just rejected to take this case and explicitly said it was up to the community to decide. Whether you believe they should have decided it or not, they are not going to. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:16, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

I did not miss it. It's Arbcom's job to handle cases like this, where some important info is not public. Punting to AN shows a lack of some desirable attributes in the current Arbitrators. They are also supposed to handle the intractable cases and act as the final venue of appeals for blocks/bans. Given the length of the block log and other editing sanctions previously affecting Science Apologist, this is one such case that ArbCom should handle. Someone not using his real name (talk) 22:00, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

• Support unblock: Bishonen's and Kww's reasoning pretty much is echoed by me here. He's an editor of the highest calibre, which is why I volunteered to proxy for him back in 2009 under ArbCom permission. I'm amenable to a shortened standard offer (October 1st is the latest I'd support the standard offer to). Sceptre 16:35, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose. The most recent sockpuppet edited on June 5, just two months ago. SA should show more restraint, like not socking for six months, before being welcomed back. Binksternet (talk) 16:47, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
• I'd support unblocking now, per Johnuniq above. Instead of deciding how many more months he should be made to sit on the sidelines, we should welcome him back now, and focus instead on how SA can do what he does well, without causing such a wake. Instead of using "can he stay away for 4 more months" as a measure of whether he's able to adjust his approach, why not use "can he adjust his approach" to measure it? Work out some reasonable terms with him, unblock, and see how it goes. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:22, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

• Unblock - Meh, why not? The incivility is academic as long as we keep editors like Malleus around, so that's not a valid reason to keep a proverbial "vested contributor" on the outside looking in. So what we're left with is the socking, a topic that personally I feel differently than I may have a few years ago. If a person is socking so that they may return to genuinely contribute content...or to see to it that bad content is not retained in article-space...then that's a still frowned-upon but ultimately redeemable reason. Socking to continue grudges, troll, harass, vandalize, etc... is the bad stuff. So let em back in with promises to stick to one account and let's see how it goes. Tarc (talk) 20:09, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

  Why did you try and drag me into this Tarc? Eric Corbett 20:20, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

  Because like it or not, you're the standard by which uncivil-but-productive editors are judged. Be proud of your standing, you're essentially blockproof. Tarc (talk) 22:18, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

• Support unblock I'm with Bish, Floq and Tarc. Seems he's on the side of the angels, with some rough edges, so let's unblock, restrict a bit if we must, and help him to help us. Begoon  20:24, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose unblock, support standard offer: I'm sorry, but 2 months of not being caught socking, following socking on and off for nearly 4 years, is not convincing enough. If they make it to six months without a sock being clocked, then fine, unblock them. Until then, no; there's a reason the standard offer exists. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 20:24, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose unblock The lengthy block log is extremely troubling. SA has failed to explain what went so horribly wrong last time and how they plan to avoid repeating their mistakes, nor have they have provided any evidence of cooperative editing on another Wiki project. These are pretty much standard conditions for lifting this sort of block. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:54, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
• Last sock barely 2 months ago? No thank you, if the user can show that they can stop socking for 6 months, then it should be considered, otherwise, no way. Snowolf 22:01, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
  • He is still denying that that account was his , even though it was blocked by an ArbCom member and checkuser. Which is why I think the community shouldn't handle this appeal. Someone not using his real name (talk) 22:16, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose I see no reason to believe that this will work any better now than it has in the past.—Kww(talk) 23:42, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

When in the past? IRWolfie- (talk) 00:15, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

• Allow him to edit under 0RR for his own edits, 1RR for other edits. The discussion here about socking is total distraction, it's not a relevant problem if someone who was banned ages ago makes constructive edits here as an IP. Per WP:IAR we are actually not even allowed to make a problem out of this unless it poses a problem for the actual content of Misplaced Pages. The real problem with SA was that he has problems with engaging with editors who he strongly disagrees with about content issues, particularly on topics related to pseudo-science and alternative medicine (which is for a large part based on pseudo-scientific concepts). He would insist on having things his way, which then unnecessarily polarizes the editing climate. I.m.o., the best way to deal with this issue is to let him stick to 0RR for all his own edits and 1RR for all other edits. Under such a regime, he won't be able to go about his business as he was used to; obviously if you are under 0RR it's pointless to write a text in an article that only you are prepared to defend. So, for him to participate in editing would require him to discuss with other editors what a reasonable compromize text would be that has enough support that it would stick without him being able to fight for it.Count Iblis (talk) 00:56, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
• Science Apologist (SA) has always been good for the content of Misplaced Pages. He adds good content and removes bad content. SA is also one of the best editors I have ever seen at spotting articles in the science, fringe science, and pseudoscience areas that have problems with POV pushing. I support unblocking SA as soon as possible. Cardamon (talk) 01:08, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
• Update: I've invited SA to take part here via his talkpage, but he has declined with thanks. People might be interested in reading his reply here. Furthermore, I've asked above if there are technical or other reasons for not assuming good faith and believing him when he claims he despairs of being able to benefit from the Standard Offer because other people at his institution have used the same IP and he has no way of ensuring that the same thing won't happen again in the next four months. It seems difficult to get an answer. I've tried in vain to find a checkuser on IRC to ask for input here, and have now e-mailed a couple of them. Bishonen | talk 10:49, 7 August 2013 (UTC).

• For someone who is so eager to edit Misplaced Pages that they use numerous socks to evade a block, they do not be so keen to make a case for themselves at their own talk page. GiantSnowman 10:58, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

• Bish, I'd possibly be in support of an unblock, were it not for what strikes me as a very implausible denial of those socks. A user agent is the identifying string of a browser, it's not like an IP address (that could easily be shared) and can often be quite unique. Coupled with the obvious knowledge of Misplaced Pages shown by those new accounts, and their return to SA's general areas of interest, in my opinion it is completely implausible that they weren't his socks. Checkusers are used to the problems of shared IP addresses, which is why that is not the only evidence they rely on, but instead a combination of all factors - and in this case it all adds up to socking. --Errant 11:17, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

User agent strings are unique by browser and version, not by browser installation. They can be modified by browser add-ons. Common user agent strings are far more widely shared than IPs, and they are trivial to spoof anyway. Reaper Eternal (talk) 15:46, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

So, if I were to edit as an IP from my university account, if I log out and go home and someone else logs on into his unversity account on the same computer and he were to edit Misplaced Pages, that would leave an identical signature if that other user were to use the same browser? Count Iblis (talk) 16:19, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

With a common networking setup you could be on different computers on the same network, so long as they have the same browser installed. - MrOllie (talk) 16:32, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

• Unblock: I actually believe what he says and am all for giving people another chance. What has the project got to lose - other than some valuable content.  Giano  15:38, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
• Unblock with a one-account restriction (which account to unblock will be his choice). This restriction should include no editing by IP either. Reaper Eternal (talk) 15:43, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
• I frankly do not believe him for a moment. Technically, one of the new crop of socks overlaps with him on a fairly static residential IP, not an IP address from an educational institution. Behaviorally, the naming convention of the new crop of socks are pretty much identical to Redshiftimprove (talk · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki), a sock SA admitted to last time around. No, he's been socking and lying about it. T. Canens (talk) 16:38, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
• Much can be said in defense of any editor willing to keep the wackos, fringe POV pushers and charlatans at bay. Sometimes in the face of incessant POV pushing from the lunatic faction, we need editors that are fearless. I say unblock him, limit him to one account and 1RR.--MONGO 17:47, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
• Current !vote tally

Unblock (13) - IRWolfie, Sceptre, Tarc, Begoon, Cardamon, Giano, Reaper Eternal, Johnuniq, Floquenbeam, Bishonen, MONGO, Vsmith, Δρ.Κ.

Oppose (6) - GregJackP, Someone not using his real name, Binksternet, A Quest For Knowledge, Kww, T. Canens

Standard offer (9) - Gaijin42, Basalisk, Beeblebrox, Hut 8.5, Beyond My Ken, Nick-D, GiantSnowman, Lukeno94, Snowolf

Realizing that this is not a vote, at present there does not seem to be significant community support for unblocking SA. At most, a standard offer is the best option he seems to have. Anyone should feel free to correct the tally if I made a mistake somewhere or if I misread someone's position. GregJackP Boomer! 16:59, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Bishonen and I support an unblock...and Bishonen is able to summon an army the likes of which has never been seen before on this earth.--MONGO 17:57, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Some of it has never been seen before on this earth; some just not for 350 million years... Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 20:58, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Considering the dramatic nature of your history with SA (I am unsure if I it is something which can be discussed on wiki, someone can ping me with clarification), do you really consider it prudent for you to take part in this discussion? IRWolfie- (talk) 22:23, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

• Unblock per the above, the discussion on his talk and for the good edits to technical articles since Sept. '04. Per his rather problematic block log, I'd suggest he avoid the problem areas: focus on the science and avoid the fringe. WP is a bit different than 5-8 years ago. Vsmith (talk) 17:57, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

• Unblock Per all the unblock comments, and more specifically those by Bishonen, Johnuniq and Sceptre. This is a very unusual case. As Bishonen mentions, it is widely acknowledged that SA's edits were mostly correct and that he fought against fringe-science advocates. This is an imperfect situation where a defender of the wiki galvanised the fringe science forces and got in trouble. But this is also an imperfect world with all the cruft currently present at our fringe-science articles so we should not aim to find the perfect solution. Hopefully, under the proper safeguards, SA will not antagonise others as severely as he did in the past. Therefore I support the imperfect but appropriate solution of unblocking SA subject to the appropriate restrictions and caveats. Δρ.Κ.  18:02, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
• Unblock - per well-argued sentiments from Bishonen. Make it clear that he's on a very short leash and needs to avoid his former pitfalls. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 19:51, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
• I remember following discussions regarding SA's methods of trying to keep this an encyclopedia that doesn't try to convince its readers of anything (except its mission to stick to reliable sources). Some of SA's methods have proven to be ineffective, obviously. I think SA realizes that and is able to adjust his behavior. These past seven years, I've followed several bold editors (admins and non-admins) who dedicate a lot of their time, brains, and effort against tilting of articles toward points of view on or outside the fringes of an academic body of scholarly and scientific sources. Some of them are quite effective without getting banned (though very few of them never get in trouble). If SA's methods don't change, it probably won't be difficult to raise it here and have SA re-banned. I really hope that won't happen. Anyway, Unblock.---Sluzzelin talk 21:15, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
• Unblock: Per Bishonen's spot-on argument. I see a diamond in the rough here that's worth keeping rather than discarding. The rough edges might need some polishing, but the value of this editor to the project has been well demonstrated. God knows we need all the help we can get in dealing with all the fringe promoters who often overwhelm the project. While I normally take a very dim view of socking, no real malice was intended or harm done in this case. Would recommend some mentoring perhaps. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 21:23, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
• Unblock. Oy. I don't edit Misplaced Pages very often anymore, but really wanted to chime in here. I remember that SA was sorely missed when he was sent out. If he edits disruptively now (after 4 some-odd years) it will be trivial to block him again. Misplaced Pages pseudoscience articles will be better off in the meantime for his work. Good luck. HiDrNick! 21:28, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
• Comment From what I can tell, based off his block log and the list of sanctions here, he has been blocked for two years, not four, because he violated an AE topic ban on edits relating to pseudoscience and fringe science. The topic ban was indefinite and, presumably, would still be in effect following an unblock unless stated otherwise. Unless he commits to abiding by the topic ban or the topic ban is lifted along with him being unblocked, then to unblock him would be irresponsible. Either this is a proposal for an unblock and lifting of his topic ban or SA has made some reasonable commitment to abiding by his restriction.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 22:01, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
• Unblock with no restrictions SA was a prolific and intelligent editor who had some behavioral issues, but 4 2 years is a long time to mature. We'll lose nothing by giving him a chance but have a lot to gain by welcoming him back. Nformation 22:13, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
• Comment The evasive, non admission, non denial of most recent socking here suggests that SA does not intend to be open and honest. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:22, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
• Standard Offer. jps (as he now signs himself) is putting on an act of injured innocence; if he is unwilling to admit that he has done anything wrong, there is no reason to expect his behaviour to improve. He has been attempting to deflect attention from his numerous socks by an unconvincing attack on the reliability of the CU process. Most of the rest of us make do with one identity and try and control our annoyance with other editors. It would be a very regrettable precedent if jps is somehow exempted from these obligations. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 22:47, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:VisualEditor/Default State RFC

I'd like to ask for an earlier-than-normal close to Misplaced Pages:VisualEditor/Default State RFC. It's still active, but we have WP:SNOW level closes on all the original questions and most of the activity now seems to be the addition of "additional proposals", a practice which is going to keep this thing open for decades.—Kww(talk) 00:27, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Removing rollback

Is it possible for me to remove rollback? I don't use it and it seems like its only purpose now is accidental reverts. SL93 (talk) 01:07, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

• Floquenbeam got it. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:16, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
  • That's good. SL93 (talk) 01:19, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
    • Let us know if you ever change your mind and someone will flip it back on. --Floquenbeam (talk) 01:21, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
      • Ok. SL93 (talk) 01:23, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Dwarf (Norse mythology)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

• Not sure what to do. A vandal has destroyed a many-years established article, “Norse dwarves”, by “moving” it to a his own personal POV-extreme article, “Dwarf (Norse mythology)”. Are you able to repair the damage, by restoring the history to before it was “moved”? Thank you for any assistance. Haldrik (talk) 01:30, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Your edit restored the version of the article that 68.202.81.148 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) wrote ... are you and the IP the same person? —Soap— 02:13, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Advice on mass AfD nomination

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I had this conversation with The Writer 2.0 after declining an RFPP request of theirs yesterday. The Writer came across many American football biographies of borderline notability created by Pmaster12, 173.78.231.251 (talk) and 71.180.91.32 (talk). My first thought was that they would all need to be nominated at AfD, but as mass nominations like this have proved to be controversial in the past I would like people's advice on what to do. Is a mass nomination the way to go, or is there a better way of dealing with this? — Mr. Stradivarius 05:40, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

How about posting up a batch nomination, say no more than 3 or so, to test the waters? I'd suggest that the nominator have a go at filtering them by similarity (I haven't had a look at any of them so this is just plucking ideas out of the air). Leave a note at the start of the AFD that this is the case and that future AFD batch nominations will include larger numbers of articles. That should draw the criticisms out beforehand without stirring drama after the case. Blackmane (talk) 11:18, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Might not be a bad idea to make a list of all of the problem articles, if only so that nominating them will be simpler later on. And it would give other editors a chance to pick out (relatively) more notable names before they go to AFD. UltraExactZZ ~ Did 12:09, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Really, it would be helpful if we had a process to deal with this sort of situation. The big problem with a mass nomination, all at once, is that anyone trying to defend the articles is going to be hard pressed to put the work in to save 50/100/200+ articles at once, whether that work means analyzing the current state, or seeking to improve them. It can create a deletion fait accompli. It also means that all the drama is front loaded, and we don't get to see how some earlier deletion discussions go to see if they do deserve to be deleted. At the same time, if a bunch of similar articles really do deserve deletion, we need to address them. Perhaps we could create an automated mass nomination queue, where you would add all the articles with rationales, and a bot would then complete the nomination on X number per day. Or maybe some better mass bundling process. Monty₈₄₅ 13:57, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

It's not a massive list of articles. I'd be inclined to look through them for articles which may pass notability on some aspect and nominate them seperately - then nom the remainder under one AFD (or a couple of AFD's if there is a natural way to divide them). --Errant 14:24, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Most of those articles are in google if you search for them and some of them are notable. The timing is bad at this point with it being there for a couple of months. Not all of them are not notable. Pmaster12 (talk) 16:39, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Yet there are still quite a few that are non-notable. I asked you twice to consider being more selective with the biographies but you never responded. Consequently, we have landed here. -- The Writer 2.0 19:17, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

First of all, there are millions of people that come to this website to read about a certain individual. It may not popular like for example Michael Jordan, J.J. Watt, Tom Brady, Derek Jeter or even Denzel Washington. There are certain individuals that like college football fans and others that want to read about a certain individual that they admire. I understand your concerns and others about the other articles and that stuff. I don't see why a couple of months later it's a issue now. That's all I'm saying. Pmaster12 (talk) 19:36, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

• The issue with mass noms is that unless all the articles have the exact same problems the discussion can become terribly convoluted and unproductive, resulting in a "no consensus" result. Blackmane's suggestion of doing it in smaller batches, making sure they all have the same issues, is a good one. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:18, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Admin wheel warring

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Can some admins sort out the Post-Pull-Post-Pull of the ITN Doctor Who over at WP:ITN/C. Admin User:Tone with his first edit in over a month took it upon himself to pull it after User: Secret had given his full reasons with no attempt to discuss. LGA _talk

• Will post. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:56, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
• (cross post from WP:ITN/C - diffs available when I have a mo) Comment Consensus was, in my opinion, not totally clear when this was posted by User:Secret; however it's certainly not clear that there was no consensus either. I don't think Secret was wrong to post it. Given the blunt number of pull comments (and we can have a seperate debate about wether the arguments to pull were good, bad or indifferent) since the seond posting, I think Tone was quite right to pull this as well - in fact I was considering doing so myself (FWIW). Those calling for desysopping per WP:WHEEL need to get a sense of perspective over what we're discussing. This isn't some punitive block or deletion. It's two lines on ITN - and the presence or absence of this bit of news there does nothing particularly to either promote or damage the encyclopedia. Pedro :  Chat  10:44, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
• Further Comment - outside of my cross post above, there has been no atempt to discuss this with User:Tone whatsoever. Do we have to jump into teh dramaz boards so quickly? Pedro :  Chat  10:49, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
• Speedy close - As an ITN regular I feel compelled to defend Tone's correct and proper use of his tools to enforce a clear consensus. I strongly suggest complainant LGA is arguably in violation of WP:BATTLE on this post, which as Pedro notes is needlessly reactive, and I have suggested at ITN that everyone drop the stick and walk away, which will be difficult if this specious AN report is allowed to drag out. Can it, trout LGA, and let's chill. Jusdafax 11:27, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
• Tone did not pull the item unilaterally. He did so after a significant amount of additional comments, saying that he believed that consensus was for pulling. This is not wheel-warring. wctaiwan (talk) 11:40, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
• It wasn't wheel-warring. It was just the blurb regenerating. The I'm-right-so-there's-nothing-more-to-discuss archiving of the section was a bit wrong, though. Formerip (talk) 13:09, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
  • I agree with you that this is not wheel-warring, FormerIP. However, the archiving of the long thread of the nomination was on my initiative, and you are free to post on the ITN Talk page if you have the need to comment further. I reject your characterization of my motive for archiving, and strongly ask you to assume good faith. As I said in my close, enough is enough. Time to move on, and I repeat that this administrator noticeboard, like the now-closed lengthy squabble at the 'Doctor Who' nomination at ITN, is likely to generate lots of heat but very little light. I ask an uninvolved editor to close this. Jusdafax 14:02, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

No idea what the heck this is, but...

Somebody might want to look at User:Childrengirlsboys and User talk:Childrengirlsboys for inappropriate use of userspace, particlulary usertalkspace. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 17:36, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

It's French for sure, looks like a dissertation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Notwillywanka (talk • contribs) 17:47, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Unless it is a dissertation in 'how to write gobbledygook', I doubt it. I note that Childrengirlsboys has been blocked by fr.wikipedia.org as "Vous ne semblez pas avoir compris le concept de WP". AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:56, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

"You don't seem to understand the concept of WP," for the uninitiated. — PublicAmpers& 18:00, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I... my head hurts. I can translate some snippets if you want, but suffice it to say that none of it is even remotely related to building an encyclopedia. Someone might also want to RevDel that email address as a courtesy, as I'd say it's distinctly possible that this user is non compos mentis. I mean, maybe this is actually some brilliant thesis and my French just isn't good enough to understand that, but I think it's much more likely utter nonsense. — PublicAmpers& 17:58, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

There is at least one section in English: the aptly named User talk:Childrengirlsboys#communication and the agony. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:05, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

As he's also dumped this in article space; blocked on competence grounds. Also deleted the page. The text is nonsense rants. --Errant 18:07, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Incorrect BLP issue tag

I'm not sure if this is the right place, but what part of caused the tag to trigger a "BLP issue or vandalism" tag? It's clearly a good-faith edit, and a good edit at that. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 19:54, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

The log entry makes it clear I think, removal of the name from the infobox. Monty₈₄₅ 20:27, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

• Well, I can't read such log entries :) Thanks for making it clear; with this infobox, the name wasn't needed anyway. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 20:29, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

• A note that I undid the edit, simply because the image was of a lower quality than the existing one. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 20:44, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Grangeside School

This page is full of untruths. The editors have even been involved with the real life vandalism of the sign. If this isn't dealt with we may take legal action. Cwhite43 (talk) 01:05, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

• Please do not make any legal threats. Also do not accuse editors of a crime, If you do not retract those thing, you will be blocked from editing. I have removed the image of the sign as it did not add anything to the article. If there are untruths in the article, please point them out on the article's talk page so they can be fixed. GB fan 01:20, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

T-BAN breach

In early February, Tristan noir was issued with this T-BAN for "any articles relating to Japanese literature, broadly construed". Today, the same user nominated Jeffrey Woodward for deletion here (Woodward is an American poet who publishes Japanese poetry and literature). Woodward was one of the subjects with which this user was most involved. It should be noted that this editor has denied being Woodward on several occasions (having originally focused on editing Woodward-related articles and adding external links and references from Woodward's blogs and publications). My first interaction with him was at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Tanka prose ("Tanka prose" being a term coined/promoted by Woodward) and most of that discussion centred on Woodward and his supporters and their sources. I can't possibly see how that article doesn't fall within the confines of the editor's T-BAN.

There is, of course, a chance that the editor wasn't being truthful in the first place and is, in fact, the subject in question. In that case, his T-BAN has effectively prevented him from attempting to delete himself from WP. Either way, he has breached his ban, but some assistance with OTRS may be in order. Stalwart111 09:23, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

In before accusations of stalking/hounding - his AFD randomly popped up directly above an NAC of mine on today's log. Stalwart111 09:23, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

I've blocked for one month. Normally I would block for less time, say a week, but Tristan noir only edits sporadically so I decided to make it a length of time that they would definitely notice. — Mr. Stradivarius 09:42, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

And I've also closed the AfD nomination as speedy keep, with no prejudice against speedy renomination by other editors. — Mr. Stradivarius 09:51, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm a little curious, why would a poet want to delete an article that gives him notability? There isn't anything negative in the article. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 10:05, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

TFD topic ban proposed for Banhtrung1

I previously proposed a topic ban for Banhtrung1 (talk · contribs) a few weeks ago - there was overwhelming consensus to do so but it was archived before an uninvolved admin could formalise it - so it goes. However, TFD issues persist e.g. he nominated the {{Poland U–19 Squad 1998 Quarée–Cup}} template for deletion, but didn't actually tag it as being nominated. This has happened before (see previous topic ban proposal for relevant diffs), and I have no doubt it will happen again - one of just many issues this user has at TFD, including striking the !votes of users he disagrees with. So I'm bringing this back here in the hope that we can formalise a topic ban, broadly construed, from nominating any/all templates at TFD - they should still be allowed to !vote. GiantSnowman 13:03, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Heads-up to all editors using Gmail for e-mail

Posting here because I know that many administrators, and other editors who watch this page, use Gmail for their Misplaced Pages e-mail accounts. Please feel free to cross-post this as appropriate.

Within the past two weeks, I have noticed that a large percentage of my WP-related e-mails, mostly from mailing lists but also including individual messages, has been directed by Gmail into my spam folder rather than my inbox. I discovered this when I didn't receive an important message that someone had forwarded to one of the lists, and on checking my spam, found dozens of messages that were not actually spam. I know that many other users have encountered the same problem recently.

If you have a Gmail account, you should check your spam folder to see if it contains any messages you want to read. If you have sent an e-mail to a Gmail address recently that hasn't been answered, this may be a reason why. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:48, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

The reason seems to be that many Gmail users have been marking messages from Wikimedia mailing lists "as spam". Gmail tracks every instance of a Mark as spam button being pressed, and uses the data to train its Bayesian filters; the tipping point was recently reached for lists.wikimedia.org, and now Gmail treats WMF lists as a spam threat. To cut a long story short, the only way to stop this from happening in the long term would be for you to select all the WMF list messages that are in your spam folder, and to then hit the Not spam button. AGK 15:57, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

I keep on top of my spam folder and haven't had a single WP-related e-mail in there - but probably simply because nobody is e-mailing me :( GiantSnowman 16:08, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for this notice, I had a few messages in there, including one asking me to confirm addition to a mailing list; now I know why I haven't received anything from the mailing list.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 17:26, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

As a note - you can create a Gmail filter for the To: address for each mailing list, with the property set of "Never mark as spam", which will prevent this from happening. I had this for most but not all of my WMF list subscriptions, and as far as I can tell the ones I already had set that way were still delivered OK, but many of the others didn't. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 19:08, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

There's something I'm not understanding here. Do people really first join WMF mailing lists and then mark the messages they get from them as spam? It sounds kind of insane. Like first buying groceries and then stuffing them in a trash bin on the way home. Well, I suppose if you join a WMF mailing list you're most likely already insane anyway, so why not. Bishonen | talk 20:17, 7 August 2013 (UTC).

The Google spam filter is tagging the incoming WMF mailing list emails as spam and jettisoning them into the spam folder. As many critical emails are being missed, in the oversight and checkuser mailing lists for example, it's important to note the issue so others are aware that there is a problem. --Jezebel'sPonyo 20:41, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Yeah, that is... weird. Could the Foundation maybe get in touch with Google, and see if they're willing to tweak the algorithm for us? Companies like Google have a long history of making special exceptions for the WMF when it comes to these things; and I imagine Google doesn't want to be in the position of disrupting the operations of projects it has a strong symbiotic relationship with (i.e., they give us loads of money, and also use tons of our data). (Pings @User:Philippe (WMF), User:Mdennis (WMF), User:Jalexander) — PublicAmpers& 20:46, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Wow I'm glad you all said something. I just checked and I had 6 messages (2 from today) in the Spam folder. Kumioko (talk) 20:49, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

A similar problem has been discussed on the wikitech-l mailing list. Johnuniq (talk) 22:23, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Administrative backlog